You are here: / / CONDOMINIUM BOARD OF MANAGERS, NOT INDIVIDUAL CONDOMINIUM OWNERS, IS LIABLE ...
,

CONDOMINIUM BOARD OF MANAGERS, NOT INDIVIDUAL CONDOMINIUM OWNERS, IS LIABLE FOR INJURY IN A COMMON AREA.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Friedman, over a full-fledged dissenting opinion by Justice Gische, determined the board of managers of a condominium was liable under the Labor Law for plaintiff’s elevation-related injury in a common area (the boiler room), not the sponsor which still owned several unsold condominium units:

While defendant 41 West 72 LLC acquired the building in question by a deed recorded in January 2001, several months later, in August 2001, 41 West 72 LLC made the building subject to the Condominium Act (Real Property Law, article 9-B) by executing and filing a declaration of condominium pursuant to Real Property Law § 339-f … . The declaration defines the common elements of the condominium (Real Property Law § 339-e[2]) to include the building’s boiler room. As a common element of the condominium, the boiler room was, at the time of plaintiff’s accident, owned collectively by all of the owners of the building’s 130 units … . However, the conversion of the building to a condominium placed its common elements “solely under the control of the [condominium’s] board of managers” pursuant to the Condominium Act, which “recogni[zes] that the board exercises exclusive control over the common elements” … . Jerdonek v 41 W. 72 LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 05666, 1st Dept 7-28-16

LABOR LAW (CONDOMINIUM BOARD OF MANAGERS, NOT INDIVIDUAL CONDOMINIUM OWNERS, ARE LIABLE FOR INJURY IN A COMMON AREA)/REAL PROPERTY LAW (LABOR LAW, CONDOMINIUMS, CONDOMINIUM BOARD OF MANAGERS, NOT INDIVIDUAL CONDOMINIUM OWNERS, ARE LIABLE FOR INJURY IN A COMMON AREA)/CONDOMINIUMS (LABOR LAW, CONDOMINIUM BOARD OF MANAGERS, NOT INDIVIDUAL CONDOMINIUM OWNERS, ARE LIABLE FOR INJURY IN A COMMON AREA)/BOARD OF MANAGERS (CONDOMINIUMS, LABOR LAW, CONDOMINIUM BOARD OF MANAGERS, NOT INDIVIDUAL CONDOMINIUM OWNERS, ARE LIABLE FOR INJURY IN A COMMON AREA)

You might also like
THE EXAMINATION UNDER OATH (EUO) WAS SCHEDULED BEFORE THE INSURER RECEIVED A CLAIM FORM; THEREFORE THE INSURER DID NOT HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 TO BE ENTITLED TO A DEFAULT DECLARATORY JUDGMENT; THE UNDERLYING TRAFFIC ACCIDENT WAS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN STAGED AND CLAIMANT FAILED TO APPEAR AT SCHEDULED EOU’S (FIRST DEPT).
PLANK USED TO CROSS GAP IN ROOF COLLAPSED, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION.
Infant’s Injury Not Apparent for Several Months—Application to File Late Notice of Claim Properly Granted
COMPLAINT ALLEGING FRAUD AND RELATED CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CERTAIN CLAIMS WERE NOT TIME-BARRED AND PLAINTIFF’S RELIANCE UPON MISREPRESENTATIONS WAS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED (FIRST DEPT).
CITY AGENCY FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE REPORT SOUGHT BY PETITIONERS WAS SUBJECT TO THE INTRA-AGENCY EXEMPTION FROM THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW (FOIL) BECAUSE THE AGENCY DID NOT PRESENT PROOF THE PREPARER OF THE REPORT WAS RETAINED BY THE AGENCY, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED PETITIONERS’ REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AS MANDATED BY A 2017 AMENDMENT TO FOIL (FIRST DEPT).
HERE DISCLAIMERS WERE UNNECESSARY BECAUSE THE ACTIVITY WHICH LED TO INJURY WAS NOT WITHIN THE OVERALL SCOPE OF THE POLICY-COVERAGE; HAD THE DISCLAIMERS BEEN BASED UPON AN EXCLUSION FROM COVERAGE, AS OPPOSED TO THE OVERALL SCOPE OF THE COVERAGE, THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN INVALID AS UNTIMELY.
In this Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit, Causes of Action Not Subject to the “Internal Affairs” Doctrine Should Not Have Been Dismissed
THIS PRODUCTS LIABILITY (DEFECTIVE DESIGN) ACTION AROSE FROM THE ROLLOVER OF A VEHICLE MADE BY DEFENDANT FORD; PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT ALLEGING THE VEHICLE WAS UNSAFE AND PRONE TO ROLLOVERS WAS CONCLUSORY AND THEREFORE DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

HEARING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED FURTHER INTO INMATE’S REFUSAL TO... PETITIONER SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN RESPONSE...